SA Legal SolutionsSan Antonio's Leading Litigation Support and Court Reporting Company2016-09-01T19:56:33Zhttp://salegalsolutions.com/feed/atom/WordPressadminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=73562016-09-01T19:40:59Z2016-07-21T21:16:22ZCongratulations to Phil Bernal’s team at Ketterman Rowland & Westlund. We just completed a six day 18-wheeler accident that unfortunately resulted in a driver being killed. A trial this size typically takes much longer, but Phil and team had everything organized and presented the evidence in an easy to understand and proficient way. This is the second $10+million verdict for ...

]]>0adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=72912016-06-21T18:53:21Z2016-06-21T18:42:11ZOver the past year, we have been getting more and more requests for Picture in Picture depositions. When covering overflow We’ve been asked to do it in various ways. What I’ve seen is there is not real “standard” for PiP. Last month For the first time I presented at a trial that had nothing but Picture in Picture with document ...

]]>Over the past year, we have been getting more and more requests for Picture in Picture depositions. When covering overflow We’ve been asked to do it in various ways. What I’ve seen is there is not real “standard” for PiP.

Last month For the first time I presented at a trial that had nothing but Picture in Picture with document camera/ELMO depositions edited and played. We did not take any of the depositions, but here’s the good, the bad, and the really ugly..

Location and Layout:

Located right on the border with Mexico in Brownsville sits this courthouse. I unfortunately, did not take a picture of the courtroom, but it was large and auditorium like. The judge sits high up in one corner and the jury on the opposite side of the room looking at him, maybe 75ft away. On the back wall between them is a very large (15′ or so) permanent screen that the witness sat in front of.

The projector was in need of a new bulb and some keystone adjustment but that’s what I had to work with. Unfortunately, the witness sits in front of the screen which wouldn’t allow me to use my own projector. We turned the row of lights along the wall off during playback, which helped, but it was still nowhere near “bright”.

The Good

Example 1

Example 2

These depositions were taken by the same company. The jury was able to follow along and had no issues reading the documents or seeing the witness. What makes them good?

The source files were in 1280×720.

The elmo was focused and oriented correctly (horizontal and vertical)

The document camera is in HD (or a high resolution)

The witness is put into the corner and the document camera is allowed to take up the majority of the screen

The witness is in 4:3 on the PIP.

I was provided a stream only file for each the elmo, deponent and mix.

I do have a few complaints (that did not cause any issues)

The deponent only stream is in 16:9. There were many points where you could see the attorneys “working” on their laptops

It looks like the 4:3 PIP was a crop done in post as the date:time is cut off. We prefer no time:date

The Bad

Example 1

It should be obvious, but what makes this bad?

The elmo was oriented incorrectly for the first hour. Every document displayed was sideways.

When the camera was rotated, the operator did not horizontally orientate the camera. The document looked like it was being viewed at an angle.

From the start of the deposition the witness had an ipad blocking the view and red bull cans in the corner. 16:9 was too wide for this shot.

After the first hour we were able to read the documents

Example 2

Some issues with this one as well..

The witness is in 16:9, but it’s been shrunk and does not fill the whole screen.

There is extra black space in the PIP. Both the witness and the camera are too small when in PIP

The jury was not able to read any document, was more of a distraction than anything.

The operator did not have the capability to plug a laptop in to display a video. The solution was to put an ipad under the camera and hit play. It did not look good at all.

The Ugly

Example 1

What in the world?

I’m not sure what the resolution on this is. Source claims 1280×720, but it’s clearly not HD and while it looks 4:3, it’s not.

Placing the PIP on top of the document feed is not a prefered location (side or corner please)

The document camera is not in HD.

This was the only source recorded. There was no deponent only feed.

Example 2

You probably can not get any worse than this!

It came to me in a 320×420 MPG1.

You can’t see the witness nor the document.

I hope they didn’t pay extra for this.

My Takeaways

I think for PIP depositions to be accepted by the legal community there needs to be a more standard approach to layout and capturing specs. I’ve been against PIP for many many years due to the quality not being good enough to present in court. With today’s technology, it is much more cost effective and easier to produce than only a couple years ago.

Here is an example of the current way we’ve been producing our PIP (one is a powerpoint and one is a document camera):

We’ve disputed with overlaying the witness “on top” of the PIP feed in order to give more space to the document being displayed, but have found that sometimes the attorney highlights or points out information behind the witness feed.

We supply a camera, elmo/doc cam/computer and mixed feed files on every job. This allows the end user to do anything they want. I almost had an issue of playing a cut that had a document containing insurance information being shown, I would have had to take it into premier and edit it out by hand, wasting valuable time in a middle of trial, late night editing marathon.

We always shoot the witness in 4:3 and the document camera in 1280×720. The deliverable product is a 1280×720 mp4.

12adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=72882016-03-15T01:29:40Z2016-03-14T19:43:09ZAnother great win for our clients! Potentially the largest product liability verdict in Bexar County, Texas. The jury awarded $124.5 million to the family of an 11-year-old boy who received critical head injuries four years ago when the driver’s seat of his father’s Audi A4 collapsed in a rear-end collision. Read more here: San Antonio family wins $124.5 million jury ...

]]>Another great win for our clients! Potentially the largest product liability verdict in Bexar County, Texas. The jury awarded $124.5 million to the family of an 11-year-old boy who received critical head injuries four years ago when the driver’s seat of his father’s Audi A4 collapsed in a rear-end collision.

The jury found Audi AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., were mostly responsible for the accident, and awarded a total of $124,496.993.97 to the family of Jessie Rivera, Jr., who sustained catastrophic injuries including severe brain damage, partial paralysis and blindness. Evidence in the case showed that the 11-year-old boy was injured when the car in which he was a passenger was struck from behind, and the seatback of the driver, the boy’s father, unexpectedly collapsed, fell backward, and the father’s body struck the boy in the head.

SA Legal provided full courtroom support including displaying exhibits to the jury and video deposition editing and playback.

]]>0adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=72862016-03-15T01:29:17Z2016-02-19T19:00:24ZLobo v. Ninja Jump: This highly disputed lawsuit was presented for 3 weeks and finally into the Jury’s hands on 02/17/16. This case was brought by the parents for a 14 year old boy that suffered a traumatic brain injury while participating in a “Bouncy Boxing” activity. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the boxing gloves were improperly designed and had ...

]]>Lobo v. Ninja Jump: This highly disputed lawsuit was presented for 3 weeks and finally into the Jury’s hands on 02/17/16. This case was brought by the parents for a 14 year old boy that suffered a traumatic brain injury while participating in a “Bouncy Boxing” activity.

The plaintiffs successfully argued that the boxing gloves were improperly designed and had no warnings.

SA Legal assisted the Rhodes team from voir dire to closing arguments. We helped display over 300 exhibits and created over 500 video clips.

]]>0adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=71902015-08-23T16:06:26Z2015-08-23T16:06:26ZRick Neville has done it again, for the second time in the 408th district court in Bexar County with Judge Noll presiding. In this latest trial, Rick was able to help his client recover $190,000 from injuries resulting in a low-speed car accident. Last month in Judge Noll’s court Rick recovered $250,000+ in another low impact car accident that caused ...

]]>Rick Neville has done it again, for the second time in the 408th district court in Bexar County with Judge Noll presiding. In this latest trial, Rick was able to help his client recover $190,000 from injuries resulting in a low-speed car accident.

Last month in Judge Noll’s court Rick recovered $250,000+ in another low impact car accident that caused his client to undergo neck surgery.

We have worked with Rick for years and have developed a streamlined presentation strategy that is very cost effective for car accident litigation. If you would like hear how we’re helping Rick and other attorneys present their cases in the courtroom. Please call us at 210-591-1791!

]]>0adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=70602016-06-21T18:57:41Z2015-03-30T16:51:07ZEveryone here at SA Legal is excited about the massive victory our clients had in Bexar county district court last week. Congratulations to Brian Steward, Jay Moore and Ryan Todd for a well tried case. Cumpian was working for Leal Welding and Erection in May 2012 as a subcontractor on a Joeris General Contractors job site. Cumpian was working as ...

]]>Everyone here at SA Legal is excited about the massive victory our clients had in Bexar county district court last week. Congratulations to Brian Steward, Jay Moore and Ryan Todd for a well tried case.

Cumpian was working for Leal Welding and Erection in May 2012 as a subcontractor on a Joeris General Contractors job site. Cumpian was working as a welder’s assistant when a metal staircase that was being moved via forklift was dropped onto his foot.

This was a rarely seen bifurcated punitive damages case where the jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $5million.

]]>0adminhttp://salegalsolutions.com/?p=70532015-02-25T22:31:09Z2015-02-25T22:31:09ZLast week we helped Will Allan and Alex Nava from Allan, Nava, Glander successfully defend what we nicknamed the “bumper scratcher” case. This low impact and very low damage claim was filed by The Herrera Law firm and included a neck surgery recommendation. There were many obstacles to overcome, including the Judge not allowing the accident photographs into evidence. After ...

]]>Last week we helped Will Allan and Alex Nava from Allan, Nava, Glander successfully defend what we nicknamed the “bumper scratcher” case. This low impact and very low damage claim was filed by The Herrera Law firm and included a neck surgery recommendation.

There were many obstacles to overcome, including the Judge not allowing the accident photographs into evidence. After 2 weeks of testimony the plaintiffs asked for $625,000 in damages, including past and future pain and suffering.

The jury returned a $0 verdict in 45 minutes of deliberation.

We provided the defense team with creation of trial exhibit notebooks, deposition editing and playback in court and Sanction support in the courtroom. There were not many demonstrative graphics created, but we did create a basic timeline as seen below.

]]>1adminhttp://www.dlstx.com/?p=7152012-09-29T21:35:59Z2012-09-29T21:35:59ZJury is back on this heated trial in Bexar County. Find the news article here: Jury decides doctor not to blame for toddler’s death We helped prepare some of the trial exhibit boards and with the editing of videos in the trial portion of this case. It was well tried by both sides.

]]>0adminhttp://www.trialtechview.com/?p=6452012-06-27T09:42:23Z2012-06-27T09:42:23ZHave you ever heard that juries remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see and 50% of what they hear and see? I have, and I’ve actually have used it many times while explaining why trial presentations are beneficial. While researching for an upcoming CLE, articles: I wanted to find the source ...

]]>Have you ever heard that juries remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see and 50% of what they hear and see? I have, and I’ve actually have used it many times while explaining why trial presentations are beneficial.

While researching for an upcoming CLE, articles:I wanted to find the source of these numbers to make sure there was actual evidence to support this. Guess what? There is none, and in reality there is no truth to it. Here’s two interesting articles:

]]>0adminhttp://www.dlstx.com/?p=812012-04-24T17:36:45Z2012-04-24T17:36:45ZCongrats to Lawrence Morales of San Antonio for a well tried and long trial in Bexar County. This case sparked lots of emotions and hopefully will show other apartment managers to follow the rules and keep their unoccupied apartments locked and not allow random people to stay in them. Press Links: News 4 WOAI (story #1) News 4 WOAI (story ...

]]>Congrats to Lawrence Morales of San Antonio for a well tried and long trial in Bexar County. This case sparked lots of emotions and hopefully will show other apartment managers to follow the rules and keep their unoccupied apartments locked and not allow random people to stay in them.